Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Jose Fly]

I think a transitional fossil has been defined here. Do you agree or disagree?

Let's look.

Page 55
... during the process of modification, represented in the diagram, another of our principles, namely that of extinction, will have played an important part. As in each fully stocked country natural selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 58
Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 80
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 125
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

What I don't understand is that you've already posted a definition for "transitional fossil" in this thread...CLICK HERE. No one here objected to that definition, and since you posted it my focus has been on using that definition to determine whether or not certain specimens meet it. But it's become obvious that you have absolutely no intention of doing anything like that, ever. You will dodge, evade, distract, throw out endless red herrings, and everything else you can do in order to avoid doing one simple thing......comparing fossil specimens to the definition of "transitional fossil" to determine if any exist.

So if that's the state of things, please just say so and stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's look.

Page 55
... during the process of modification, represented in the diagram, another of our principles, namely that of extinction, will have played an important part. As in each fully stocked country natural selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 58
Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 80
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 125
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

What I don't understand is that you've already posted a definition for "transitional fossil" in this thread...CLICK HERE. No one here objected to that definition, and since you posted it my focus has been on using that definition to determine whether or not certain specimens meet it. But it's become obvious that you have absolutely no intention of doing anything like that, ever. You will dodge, evade, distract, throw out endless red herrings, and everything else you can do in order to avoid doing one simple thing......comparing fossil specimens to the definition of "transitional fossil" to determine if any exist.

So if that's the state of things, please just say so and stop wasting everyone's time.

Amazingly enough he did site this in one of his posts:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."

I think that he realized that by this definition that there are countless transitional fossils and he could not have that.

 

[Audie]

Amazingly enough he did site this in one of his posts:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."

I think that he realized that by this definition that there are countless transitional fossils and he could not have that.

Amazingly, you did not read the post.


What I don't understand is that you've already posted a definition for "transitional fossil" in this thread...CLICK HERE.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't find creationists making good arguments. There would be a lot more respect for creationists if they just stated: God said it, I believe it, End of story.

Instead they try to make nonsensical and false arguments against ToE.

Exactly! Why aren't creationists content to speak the truth and just say that the reason they reject evolution is because it contradicts their religious beliefs and leave it at that? Why do they then have to try and argue from a scientific standpoint?

My thought is that it's a symptom of a larger issue, namely that religious belief is not the authority it used to be. There was a time when a religious leader declaring something to be "scriptural", "God given", or something like that carried a lot of weight and most people would listen. William Jennings Bryan's role in the Scopes trial is a good example. But now as western society has become more diverse and secular, religious proclamations are only authoritative among those already in the faith, and are basically ignored by everyone else. Plus, science has become the primary authority by which western society determines reality. Every day most news sites have headlines touting some new scientific study or discovery; companies market their products by appealing to "clinical studies"; political decisions are delayed "until the science is in".

So creationists, whether consciously or subconsciously, realize that it's far more persuasive to argue that evolution is scientifically wrong than to just say "it's contrary to scripture, therefore it's wrong". And that whole approach manifests itself in what we see here....creationists coming in and trying to make scientific arguments against evolution. They know if they appealed to their religious beliefs, the rest of us would just shrug our shoulders and say "so what".

The good thing is, this is rapidly becoming a moot issue. I've been noticing how many of my favorite anti-creationism websites, blogs, and message boards have largely gone dead. Why? Because it's just not a prominent issue like it was just 10-20 years ago (and certainly not like it was 50+ years ago). Surveys are showing that young people in the US accept evolution at about the same rate as the rest of the developed world, and belief in creationism is largely among older, less educated conservative Christians. As the baby boomers die off this trend is likely to continue.

And frankly, I'll be quite happy when boards/forums like this one are nothing more than a quaint artifact of a different era.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amazingly, you did not read the post.


What I don't understand is that you've already posted a definition for "transitional fossil" in this thread...CLICK HERE.

I missed that. Thank you. At any rate it does not hurt to have more than one person point out the source that he used and is now ignoring.

 

[Audie]

I missed that. Thank you. At any rate it does not hurt to have more than one person point out the source that he used and is now ignoring.

I am going you one better, I am ignoring the poster. The
Chicomette brain, like others of the human sort, can
only take so much.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well I do not believe the gods are all good so this simply isn't a problem, not even for Christians this is a problem as they believe the world is corrupted

 

[nPeace]

Let's look.

Page 55
... during the process of modification, represented in the diagram, another of our principles, namely that of extinction, will have played an important part. As in each fully stocked country natural selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 58
Natural selection, as has just been remarked, leads to divergence of character and to much extinction of the less improved and intermediate forms of life.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 80
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

Page 125
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.​

There is no definition of transitional fossil in there.

What I don't understand is that you've already posted a definition for "transitional fossil" in this thread...CLICK HERE. No one here objected to that definition, and since you posted it my focus has been on using that definition to determine whether or not certain specimens meet it. But it's become obvious that you have absolutely no intention of doing anything like that, ever. You will dodge, evade, distract, throw out endless red herrings, and everything else you can do in order to avoid doing one simple thing......comparing fossil specimens to the definition of "transitional fossil" to determine if any exist.

So if that's the state of things, please just say so and stop wasting everyone's time.

Am I wasting your time?
I don't think I am wasting anyone's time.
If you are in a hurry to go somewhere, feel free to carry on. Please don't let me hold you up.

You made a few accusations which I do not agree are truthful. I am attempting to point those out to you. If you would rather I not represent myself, since those claims I consider to be false, were made against me, feel free to do what you must.

Twice in the Watchmaker thread, I referred to two definitions given for transitional fossils, and once, I asked a question concerning the one mentioned in Wikipedia.
As you did throughout, God knows how many pages, you ignored these, and was only concerned with asking me if I understood what a transitional fossil is - not the definition, which was already given.

This is no different to what you are again doing. You have one focus - what you want, so you have no interest in anything I am saying.

As I see it, this definition

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group..

is not different from the one Darwin gives.
For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.
...the less improved and intermediate forms of life.
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...

If there is a difference, would you please point it out, instead of just ignoring, or brushing it off, to get to your demands, since this is also part of the discussion.

You totally ignored references I made to both definitions, and the one you gave.
The truth is, I was discussing, what I considered a transitional fossil. You were demanding what you wanted, and ignoring what I was discussing.
Hence, you falsely claim I left the thread without giving a definition, when in fact you simply ignored most everything that you felt did not meet your demands.

I am really trying.

The second claim you made, is also not accurate, from what I have read.
I see someone saying, simply, that a person who accepts the teachings of the Bible, makes a dedication to God, to live by his word, and then rejects those teachings, are really defectors, and are no longer part of the flock, which protects those in the fold.
Also, the defector only becomes rotten, like a ripe fruit fallen from a tree and left there.
One that defects, cannot expect to enjoy the same association, they once had.

That's what I understand from this...

why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other ....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go. Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten.

If I became a defector, and a slanderer I would expect and deserve the same treatment.

However, the issue with the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether one is a Jehovah's Witness or not, so I don't see why you try to make it seem as if Jehovah's Witness are the only ones that reject
the theory of evolution.
It's as though you have a personal issue with Jehovah's Witness. Do you?


Now that that's out of the way.
You know, I really don't feel like answering your question, because you totally ignored the answer I was giving all the time.
Why should I now waste my time, to give it again?

I know. Because I'm a nice guy. That's why.
Please restate what you would like to know.

 

[Jose Fly]

Am I wasting your time?
I don't think I am wasting anyone's time.
If you are in a hurry to go somewhere, feel free to carry on. Please don't let me hold you up.

It's not a matter of being in a hurry, it's a matter of someone taking a conversation in endless circles.

Twice in the Watchmaker thread, I referred to two definitions given for transitional fossils, and once, I asked a question concerning the one mentioned in Wikipedia.

What you posted was Darwin talking about "intermediates", not him defining the term.

As you did throughout, God knows how many pages, you ignored these, and was only concerned with asking me if I understood what a transitional fossil is - not the definition, which was already given.

As the record shows, I posted the standard current definition for "transitional fossil", and asked if you agreed with it. Also, I requested that if you didn't agree with the definition, could you state what definition you did agree with. You refused to say.

Even now, despite all the different ways multiple people have tried to get you to commit to a definition, you still have not done so.

So I'm going to try yet again....what definition do you have in mind when you use the term "transitional fossil"?

We can clear this whole thing up if you just answer that question.

This is no different to what you are again doing. You have one focus - what you want, so you have no interest in anything I am saying.

Let's be clear....I am extremely interested in your answer to the above question.

As I see it, this definition

is not different from the one Darwin gives.
For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct.
...the less improved and intermediate forms of life.
... must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved...

If there is a difference, would you please point it out, instead of just ignoring, or brushing it off, to get to your demands, since this is also part of the discussion.

No one here cares if one definition is different than any other. The focus this entire time has been, and continues to be, on which definition you agree with. Clear that up by answering the question above, and this conversation will move forward.

The truth is, I was discussing, what I considered a transitional fossil.

Ok then, can you please restate for the record and in the interest of clarity and mutual understanding what you consider to be a "transitional fossil"?

You were demanding

what you wanted, and ignoring what I was discussing.
Hence, you falsely claim I left the thread without giving a definition, when in fact you simply ignored most everything that you felt did not meet your demands.

If you can address the above and clarify, I will be more than happy to apologize for my role in this.

The second claim you made, is also not accurate, from what I have read.
I see someone saying, simply, that a person who accepts the teachings of the Bible, makes a dedication to God, to live by his word, and then rejects those teachings, are really defectors, and are no longer part of the flock, which protects those in the fold.
Also, the defector only becomes rotten, like a ripe fruit fallen from a tree and left there.
One that defects, cannot expect to enjoy the same association, they once had.

Other Bible-based faiths don't kick folks out, shun them, and treat them like a piece of rotten fruit for simply recognizing evolution as valid science.

However, the issue with the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether one is a Jehovah's Witness or not, so I don't see why you try to make it seem as if Jehovah's Witness are the only ones that reject
the theory of evolution.

All Jehovah's Witnesses reject evolution, correct? As you just described, as soon as one recognizes evolution as valid, they are kicked out of the faith. So let's not insult everyone's intelligence and pretend that's not a factor here.

It's as though you have a personal issue with Jehovah's Witness. Do you?

Not at all. I'm just noting the obvious...if you belong to a faith that threatens its members with banishment and shunning should you become an "evolutionist", it's a major factor in why you deny evolution. To pretend otherwise is pure delusion.

You know, I really don't feel like answering your question, because you totally ignored the answer I was giving all the time.
Why should I now waste my time, to give it again?

I know. Because I'm a nice guy. That's why.
Please restate what you would like to know.

Wait....are you saying that you've already taken a definition for "transitional fossil", compared specific fossil specimens to that definition, and explained why they don't meet that definition? If so, please link to the post where you did so.

If not, that's what I would like to see you do.

 

[nPeace]

It's not a matter of being in a hurry, it's a matter of someone taking a conversation in endless circles.


What you posted was Darwin talking about "intermediates", not him defining the term.


As the record shows, I posted the standard current definition for "transitional fossil", and asked if you agreed with it. Also, I requested that if you didn't agree with the definition, could you state what definition you did agree with. You refused to say.

Even now, despite all the different ways multiple people have tried to get you to commit to a definition, you still have not done so.

So I'm going to try yet again....what definition do you have in mind when you use the term "transitional fossil"?

We can clear this whole thing up if you just answer that question.


Let's be clear....I am extremely interested in your answer to the above question.


No one here cares if one definition is different than any other. The focus this entire time has been, and continues to be, on which definition you agree with. Clear that up by answering the question above, and this conversation will move forward.


Ok then, can you please restate for the record and in the interest of clarity and mutual understanding what you consider to be a "transitional fossil"?


If you can address the above and clarify, I will be more than happy to apologize for my role in this.


Other Bible-based faiths don't kick folks out, shun them, and treat them like a piece of rotten fruit for simply recognizing evolution as valid science.


All Jehovah's Witnesses reject evolution, correct? As you just described, as soon as one recognizes evolution as valid, they are kicked out of the faith. So let's not insult everyone's intelligence and pretend that's not a factor here.


Not at all. I'm just noting the obvious...if you belong to a faith that threatens its members with banishment and shunning should you become an "evolutionist", it's a major factor in why you deny evolution. To pretend otherwise is pure delusion.


Wait....are you saying that you've already taken a definition for "transitional fossil", compared specific fossil specimens to that definition, and explained why they don't meet that definition? If so, please link to the post where you did so.

If not, that's what I would like to see you do.

Circles? I'm going in circles? Me?
All I sought to do was make clear that you are not presenting the story as it really is.
Anyhue.

I think Darwin made it clear that a transitional fossil would not be fully formed. This is what I understood, from what I read. Perhaps I really don't understand any of it - clueless.
So you were trying to get me do agree to a definition. Why?
Maybe I wasn't communicating very well, so...

Apparently, I'm not the one "holding up the show".
You have a definition. Why not just move on?

Let me see if I can help you.
Repeating...
I can't give you my definition, since I don't have one, but I can give you the definition. I'll also give the one that I think you more specifically want.
Missing Link:
a hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms - aka transitional fossil.

Here is a definition of transitional fossil.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Moving on...
You may go back to the Watchmaker thread, and read what I said, here, and here.

Listen from 3:30 of this video - Transitional Fossil: Fish to Amphibians

While trying to recreate a history that they can't go back in time, and observe, much speculation is required.
It simply is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/~houde/history_of_tetrapods.pdf

I thought I made all this clear before. Actually, I did.
Repeating...
How is a transitional determine?
Take a look at one of your best - Archaeopteryx
Since some here don't like to read long posts, and links, I won't bother posting any information.
Basically Archaeopteryx is hypothesized over many years to be what it is considered to be, and there is still disagreement.

Why should I accept a theory that even scientists don't agree on?
I have long taken Darwin's words Again, no long posts. Just read the book.
In part...
Darwin said:

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation....

So yes. The links are missing, and from these words, and others, I am sure they will never be found, yet transitional fossils exist, because they can be assumed into existence.
I have no need of that hypothesis.

So as I said before - create a tree - and try to fit leaves on the different branches. Often this requires linking fossils, and DNA sequences together based on the tree, and arriving at hugely mistaken conclusions, which are often not agreed on, and never conclusive - only agreed on.

I really don't know what else you could possibly want me to say.
I'm sorry. If it is Dutch, Spanish, or any other language you are looking for, I do not speak those languages. Okay?

Why am I doing this again - repeating myself?

Oh right. Because I am a nice guy.

So that you know. The term "evolution", being as broad as it is, is something you don't need to be surprised at hearing that there are Jehovah's Witnesses who will say they accept it.
If a Jehovah's Witness said they believed in evolution, they will not be disfellowshiped. It is a matter of what evolution is, and if one rejects what the scriptures teach.
Even when talking with persons in the ministry, we may have to ask exactly what they believe about a subject.
So I think you need now to define evolution, since the term seems to be evolving, like so many other scientific terms. (I asked about that)
Perhaps it's just another way of getting people to accept something, without really understanding what they are accepting.
I have already mentioned what I accept, and what I don't.

Thank you for finally accepting my position, and seeing that I had indeed gone somewhere, by answering your questions more than once.
If you are interested in showing that those transitional fossils are really the links between the supposed ancestral group, and descendant group, go right ahead. I have no problem with that.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think Darwin made it clear that a transitional fossil would not be fully formed. This is what I understood, from what I read.

No, that's not correct. Nowhere did Darwin write that a transitional fossil would not be "fully formed".

So you were trying to get me do agree to a definition. Why?

Because you claimed there are none. If one person says X doesn't exist and another says it does, then in order to see who's correct you agree what X is then you go look to see if there are any out there.

I can't give you my definition, since I don't have one, but I can give you the definition.

Thank you.

]Here is a definition of transitional fossil.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Do you understand how to most people who study this (including pretty much all paleontologists), fossils that meet the above definition exist in abundance? You obviously don't agree, but do you understand how yours is a minority view?

Listen from 3:30 of this video - Transitional Fossil: Fish to Amphibians

Thanks.

While trying to recreate a history that they can't go back in time, and observe, much speculation is required.
It simply is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.

So is your standard of evidence for any past event, that unless we have a time machine we can't say anything about it?

Basically Archaeopteryx is hypothesized over many years to be what it is considered to be, and there is still disagreement.

Yes, there's disagreement about its relative place in the evolutionary tree of reptiles and birds, but there is no disagreement over its status as a "transitional fossil". Do you understand how that can be true?

Why should I accept a theory that even scientists don't agree on?

I think I have a pretty good idea why you don't accept it.

So yes. The links are missing, and from these words, and others, I am sure they will never be found yet transitional fossils exist, because they can be assumed into existence.
I have no need of that hypothesis.

I'm sure that's what you believe, and it's what you'll always believe no matter what. That much is clear.

One thing I wonder though....how do you account for the fact that pretty much every paleontologist across the globe has concluded that transitionals do exist? Are they liars? Are they really, really terrible at their jobs? Are they under some Satanic magic spell? Are they engaging in the biggest and longest-running conspiracy in the history of mankind?

I really don't know what else you could possibly want me to say.

I think you've made yourself quite clear. Thank you.

From what I see, the real root issue here is your faith and how it dictates your thinking on this subject. But in my decades of discussing this, I've also found that very, very few creationists want to go down that road and delve into the role their faith plays in all this. And I understand that....it's extremely personal.

So that you know. The term "evolution", being as broad as it is, is something you don't need to be surprised at hearing that there are Jehovah's Witnesses who will say they accept it.
If a Jehovah's Witness said they believed in evolution, they will not be disfellowshiped. It is a matter of what evolution is, and if one rejects what the scriptures teach.
Even when talking with persons in the ministry, we may have to ask exactly what they believe about a subject.

Can you clarify? Where is the line regarding evolution that if someone crosses it, they will be disfellowshiped?

So I think you need now to define evolution, since the term seems to be evolving, like so many other scientific terms. (I asked about that)
Perhaps it's just another way of getting people to accept something, without really understanding what they are accepting.
I have already mentioned what I accept, and what I don't.

That's ok. I'm not really interested in trying to explain evolutionary biology to a Jehovah's Witness. I've been down that road plenty of times, with folks of many different faiths, and in my experience it's largely a waste of time. I liken it to offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew, in that the person is fundamentally opposed to what you're presenting.

Thank you for finally accepting my position, and seeing that I had indeed gone somewhere, by answering your questions more than once.
If you are interested in showing that those transitional fossils are really the links between the supposed ancestral group, and descendant group, go right ahead. I have no problem with that.

You're welcome. And as I said, explaining evolutionary biology to you doesn't appeal to me at all. I am however interested in hearing more about where your faith draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable "evolution".

 

[Audie]

No, that's not correct. Nowhere did Darwin write that a transitional fossil would not be "fully formed".


Because you claimed there are none. If one person says X doesn't exist and another says it does, then in order to see who's correct you agree what X is then you go look to see if there are any out there.


Thank you.


Do you understand how to most people who study this (including pretty much all paleontologists), fossils that meet the above definition exist in abundance? You obviously don't agree, but do you understand how yours is a minority view?


Thanks.


So is your standard of evidence for any past event, that unless we have a time machine we can't say anything about it?


Yes, there's disagreement about its relative place in the evolutionary tree of reptiles and birds, but there is no disagreement over its status as a "transitional fossil". Do you understand how that can be true?


I think I have a pretty good idea why you don't accept it.


I'm sure that's what you believe, and it's what you'll always believe no matter what. That much is clear.

One thing I wonder though....how do you account for the fact that pretty much every paleontologist across the globe has concluded that transitionals do exist? Are they liars? Are they really, really terrible at their jobs? Are they under some Satanic magic spell? Are they engaging in the biggest and longest-running conspiracy in the history of mankind?


I think you've made yourself quite clear. Thank you.

From what I see, the real root issue here is your faith and how it dictates your thinking on this subject. But in my decades of discussing this, I've also found that very, very few creationists want to go down that road and delve into the role their faith plays in all this. And I understand that....it's extremely personal.


Can you clarify? Where is the line regarding evolution that if someone crosses it, they will be disfellowshiped?


That's ok. I'm not really interested in trying to explain evolutionary biology to a Jehovah's Witness. I've been down that road plenty of times, with folks of many different faiths, and in my experience it's largely a waste of time. I liken it to offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew, in that the person is fundamentally opposed to what you're presenting.


You're welcome. And as I said, explaining evolutionary biology to you doesn't appeal to me at all. I am however interested in hearing more about where your faith draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable "evolution".

That "fully formed" thing always puzzles me.

How would they picture some hypothetical thing
that is not fully formed?

I cannot make any sense of the idea.

Half a wing? A lung that does not work?

 

[Jose Fly]

That "fully formed" thing always puzzles me.

How would they picture some hypothetical thing
that is not fully formed?

I cannot make any sense of the idea.

Half a wing? A lung that does not work?

It's always easier to defeat a straw man than the real thing.

 

[Audie]

It's always easier to defeat a straw man than the real thing.

I guess. But they must have something in mind,
or maybe not. None of them have ever tried to
explain, I think it is just one of their mindless
cut n paste tries at a gotcha.

 

[Jose Fly]

I guess. But they must have something in mind,
or maybe not. None of them have ever tried to
explain, I think it is just one of their mindless
cut n paste tries at a gotcha.

It's a simple defense mechanism. If you're going to deny that X exists, it's far safer to use a straw man definition of X than the real thing. That way there's virtually zero chance you'll ever be confronted with an example of X and then have to deal with the subsequent consequences.

It's the same reason why the common creationist response after being shown examples of the observed evolution of new species is, "those flies didn't turn into elephants".

 

[SkepticThinker]

That "fully formed" thing always puzzles me.

How would they picture some hypothetical thing
that is not fully formed?

I cannot make any sense of the idea.

Half a wing? A lung that does not work?

I'm having major deja vu right now. Don't we always end up here?

 

[nPeace]

One thing I wonder though....how do you account for the fact that pretty much every paleontologist across the globe has concluded that transitionals do exist? Are they liars? Are they really, really terrible at their jobs? Are they under some Satanic magic spell? Are they engaging in the biggest and longest-running conspiracy in the history of mankind?

I think you've made yourself quite clear. Thank you.

From what I see, the real root issue here is your faith and how it dictates your thinking on this subject. But in my decades of discussing this, I've also found that very, very few creationists want to go down that road and delve into the role their faith plays in all this. And I understand that....it's extremely personal.

Can you clarify? Where is the line regarding evolution that if someone crosses it, they will be disfellowshiped?.

I'm think I made myself clear, but from your questions, it does not appear you clearly understood.

Let me try again.
Theory of Evolution says
1. there is a tree with branches
2. there should be a link to connect some branches - not all, because the fossil record is [poor] (my word choice).
I am saying that the transitional fossils are assumed to be such, thus they exist.
Do you understand what I am saying?

The Bible is the textbook of Christian faith, Therefore, among Jehovah's Witnesses the Bible is the basis for truth.
If therefore, one does not believe this, they cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Each person has to make a decision as to what is truth.
Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[Audie]

I'm having major deja vu right now. Don't we always end up here?

For sure, it is an end as far as getting a response.

Unless it is "Of COURSE there is not half-wing, ToE is
the devils lie!!!"

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm having major deja vu right now. Don't we always end up here?

It's funny....I recently went back to an old message board I belonged to and read through some of my old debates/discussions with creationists from as far back as 2004. I was amazed at how the conversation hasn't evolved (HAH!) at all over the last 14 years.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm think I made myself clear, but from your questions, it does not appear you clearly understood.

Let me try again.

Ok.

Theory of Evolution says
1. there is a tree with branches
2. there should be a link to connect some branches - not all, because the fossil record is [poor] (my word choice).

Sure.

I am saying that the transitional fossils are assumed to be such, thus they exist.
Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I totally understand how that's your position.

The Bible is the textbook of Christian faith, Therefore, among Jehovah's Witnesses the Bible is the basis for truth.
If therefore, one does not believe this, they cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Each person has to make a decision as to what is truth.
Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I understand. What I wonder is whether you recognize how the above influences your belief that the existence of transitional fossils is "assumed".